Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA02846 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sun, 5 Aug 2001 23:56:19 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 18:00:15 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Logic Message-ID: <3B6D89AF.4354.5F2CB6@localhost> In-reply-to: <002801c11dd0$bcb276a0$6b87b2d1@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 5 Aug 2001, at 10:04, Dace wrote:
> > > Genes don't determine form. They distort it. If we didn't have
> > > genetic differences between each other, we'd all come out looking
> > > exactly the same. Indeed this is the case with identical twins.
> > > Genes account for differences. They have nothing to say as to the
> > > more profound question of our similarities. Genes are like the
> > > options on your car. They don't tell you anything about engines
> > > and wheels and whatnot, but they tell you what color you'll be and
> > > whether or not you'll have power steering.
> > > We resonate with our own kind. This is why life is divided up
> > > into species. Morphic resonance works according to similarity. We
> > > resonate with ourselves first and secondly with those who are
> > > similar. That would include everyone in our species. We have a
> > > collective mind, and this mind determines the form of our bodies
> > > as much as the archetypes of our unconscious.
> > Oh, Puh-LEEEZE! Are you trying to tell us that without genes we
> > would all look like generic humans?
> No, without genes we wouldn't exist. What I said is that if you share
> exactly the same genes with someone else, you'll come out looking
> identical to that person.
That's right, because the identical sets of genes will resolve the
myriad possibilities in the genome into two clones of a single
> > > > Due to what would any gene change something in the info residing
> > > > in itself
> > > > !?
> > > > Yes, mutations, but what causes those mutations and indeed, '
> > > > how ' would that effect the gene that change your eye color if
> > > > it does not contains a program by which the eye itself is
> > > > constructed.
> > >
> > > How can a radio dial change the music you're picking up unless it
> > > contains a program by which that music is constructed?
> > Ambient radiation, chemical exposure and viral infection can cause
> > genetic mutation. And radio dials (rheostats or varistors) direct
> > (to a particular frequency) the application of a schematically
> > instantiated heuristic on the separation of the carrier from the
> > signal for ALL frequencies within its applicable bandwidth, not one
> > for particular station X or Y and a different one for station Z, and
> > no station is 'beaming in' eye color to the genes as if they had
> > little antenna receivers on them listening to the morphic pied piper
> > resonating somewhere in the ethersphere.
> Genes determine eye color. This is a well-established fact. What's
> *not* established is that they determine the structure and functions
> of the eye. In neo-Darwinian biology, genes play very much the same
> role as the ether in Newtonian astronomy. Rather than accept the
> existence of action-at-a-distance, astronomers posited an ether across
> which waves of gravity could propagate like waves on the ocean. Now
> the same thing has happened in biology. We have trouble accepting the
> possibility that influences are exerted over a distance (in this case
> across time instead of space). So we invent a germ-plasm which
> mechanically induces the formation of the body. While genes do indeed
> play an important role in the activities of the organism, the genetic
> program is as mythical as the lumineferous ether.
Actually, the mythical thing is the idea that there is a cold morphic
resonential wind blowing through the halls of history that contains
the shape of things to come. The argument ad ignorantium (we
haven't proven the exact linkage of genes with ocular structure in
every particular yet, so it must be due to something else someone
dreamed up) was listed as a logical fallacy by the greeks 2500
years ago, and the passage of time has not led to any successful
re-evaluation of its status as a logical error.
> > The attempted analogy
> > is bad in so many places and on so many levels as to be
> > absolutely nonrelational, thus totally useless.
> It's a purely logical point. The music from a radio does not
> originate from within the radio itself. Therefore we cannot assume
> that in all cases the form of a thing arises from within the thing
> itself. You can't just assume a priori that the form of the body
> originates from within the body. It must be demonstrated a
> posteriori. No such demonstration has been forthcoming.
The music does not originate from inside the radio because it is
intentionall beamed into the ambient air by radio engineers. Your
analogy would, to be assiduously applied, require the existence of
the Great Morphic Beamer, that is, of a God, most likely akin to
the god of the latest propaganda incarnation of the biblical
creationists, intelligent design theory.
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 06 2001 - 00:00:31 BST